吸食大麻二酚和Δ9-四氫大麻酚可能會影響安全駕駛
作者：
小柯機器人發布時間：2020/12/2 21:38:16
荷蘭馬斯垂克大學Johannes G. Ramaekers團隊研究了大麻二酚和Δ9-四氫大麻酚對駕駛員表現的影響。2020年12月1日，該研究發表在《美國醫學會雜誌》上。
大麻的使用增加了車禍的風險，但大麻二酚（CBD）對駕駛的影響尚不清楚。
為了評估包含Δ9-四氫大麻酚（THC）和CBD的蒸汽大麻引起的駕駛障礙，2019年5月20日至2020年3月27日，研究組在荷蘭馬斯垂克大學心理與神經科學學院進行了一項雙盲、參與者內部的隨機臨床試驗，共招募了26例偶爾吸食大麻的健康參與者。將參與者隨機分組，分別吸食THC為主、CBD為主、THC/CBD等效的蒸汽大麻，以及安慰劑。THC和CBD劑量為13.75 mg。
主要終點為100 km內的橫向車道定位標準差（SDLP），該測試是在吸食大麻後40分鐘和240分鐘進行的。在校正的血液酒精濃度（BAC）為0.02％時，SDLP相對於安慰劑增加1.12 cm，在校正的BAC為0.05％時，SDLP相對於安慰劑增加2.4 cm。
26名隨機參與者的平均年齡為23.2歲，其中16名為女性，有22名（85％）完成了所有8項駕駛測試。吸食後40至100分鐘，CBD為主大麻的SDLP為18.21 cm，THC為主大麻為20.59 cm，THC/CBD等效大麻為21.09 cm，安慰劑為18.28 cm。與安慰劑相比，THC為主的大麻和THC/CBD等效大麻的SDLP顯著增加，但不包括CBD為主的大麻。
吸食後240至300分鐘，CBD為主大麻的SDLP為19.03 cm，THC為主大麻為19.88 cm，THC/CBD等效大麻為20.59 cm，安慰劑為19.37 cm。與安慰劑相比，THC為主、CBD為主、THC/CBD等效大麻的SDLP均沒有顯著差異。出於安全考慮，188個測試驅動中有16個（8.5％）被終止。
綜上，在一項評估公路駕駛測試中駕駛表現的跨界臨床試驗中，與安慰劑相比，駕駛員在吸食THC蒸汽為主的大麻和THC/CBD等效大麻後40至100分鐘的SDLP顯著增加，但在吸食後240至300分鐘則沒有顯著差異。
附：英文原文
Title: Effect of Cannabidiol and Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on Driving Performance: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Author: Thomas R. Arkell, Frederick Vinckenbosch, Richard C. Kevin, Eef L. Theunissen, Iain S. McGregor, Johannes G. Ramaekers
Issue&Volume: 2020/12/01
Abstract:
Importance Cannabis use has been associated with increased crash risk, but the effect of cannabidiol (CBD) on driving is unclear.
Objective To determine the driving impairment caused by vaporized cannabis containing Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and CBD.
Design, Setting, and Participants A double-blind, within-participants, randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience at Maastricht University in the Netherlands between May 20, 2019, and March 27, 2020. Participants (N=26) were healthy occasional users of cannabis.
Interventions Participants vaporized THC-dominant, CBD-dominant, THC/CBD-equivalent, and placebo cannabis. THC and CBD doses were 13.75 mg. Order of conditions was randomized and balanced.
Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; a measure of lane weaving) during 100 km, on-road driving tests that commenced at 40 minutes and 240 minutes after cannabis consumption. At a calibrated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.02%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 1.12 cm, and at a calibrated BAC of 0.05%, SDLP was increased relative to placebo by 2.4 cm.
Results Among 26 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 23.2 [2.6] years; 16 women), 22 (85%) completed all 8 driving tests. At 40 to 100 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 18.21 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 21.09 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 18.28 cm with placebo cannabis. SDLP was significantly increased by THC-dominant cannabis (+2.33 cm [95% CI, 0.80 to 3.86]; P<.001) and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis (+2.83 cm [95% CI, 1.28 to 4.39]; P<.001) but not CBD-dominant cannabis (0.05 cm [95% CI, 1.49 to 1.39]; P>.99), relative to placebo. At 240 to 300 minutes following consumption, the SDLP was 19.03 cm with CBD-dominant cannabis, 19.88 cm with THC-dominant cannabis, 20.59 cm with THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis, and 19.37 cm with placebo cannabis. The SDLP did not differ significantly in the CBD (0.34 cm [95% CI, 1.77 to 1.10]; P>.99), THC (0.51 cm [95% CI, 1.01 to 2.02]; P>.99) or THC/CBD (1.22 cm [95% CI, 0.29 to 2.72]; P=.20) conditions, relative to placebo. Out of 188 test drives, 16 (8.5%) were terminated due to safety concerns.
Conclusions and Relevance In a crossover clinical trial that assessed driving performance during on-road driving tests, the SDLP following vaporized THC-dominant and THC/CBD-equivalent cannabis compared with placebo was significantly greater at 40 to 100 minutes but not 240 to 300 minutes after vaporization; there were no significant differences between CBD-dominant cannabis and placebo. However, the effect size for CBD-dominant cannabis may not have excluded clinically important impairment, and the doses tested may not represent common usage.
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.21218
Source: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2773562